If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

Originally Posted by Vim_User

May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.
Permissive licenses grant the user rights, while prohibitive licenses reserve, limit or take the rights away.
One of the conditions to make sure the user really gets the advertized rights is to prohibit taking rights away, which is single restricted right in GPL.
Anyone who bullshits GPL essentially bullshits right to protect freedom.

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

Wrong, BSD licensed code can be re-licensed, and the copyright removed. It justs goes to show you how dumb BSD fuckers are. The thing is that what GPL people do it, they start crying, screaming like children (e.g. Theo de Raadt) while they just actively support proprietary companies when they take BSD code.

Might as well remove thier pants and bentover next to a sign saying "rape here for free"

1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.

BSD fuckers always say that Linux is a copy of UNIX or that it's a plagerism of UNIX while thier OS is the real thing.

There's nothing further from the truth. Linux was written from scratch and it has code very different from unix but causes it to act like unix. BSD is a copy of unix, no innovation or whatsoever just blatent copying of code.

BSD deserved that lawsuit. I just wished it had completely distroyed BSD. Ban them completely from touching the code.

Nope.
The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.

If GPL is academic, what research project was it part of?
BSD was part of TCP/IP, virtual memory, file system, sockets, ARPANET... remember?
GNU/GPL was not part of a research project, hence no innovation, hence not academic.

Originally Posted by brosis

The differences - three differences:
1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
- GPL is not the only license or
- copyright assignment is required.
3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.

1) You think you can just disrespect history saying BSD was copypaste? please do yourself a favor and read: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html
2) No, GPL is not academic, as pointed earlied. BSD, on the other hand, was. Also, I'm not an extremist when it comes to open/closed source; I think open-source is valuable, and personaly I had learned a lot from it, but I don't see closed-source as an enemy, as is usually seen by the GNU/GPL camp.
3) I don't find GPL's protection mechanism as freedom, nor BSD's abscense of them as anti-free.

Originally Posted by brosis

No. Not proven. If its "academic", software for study, it does not mean anything.

Yes, it proves it and means a lot. It means that the main motivation for BSD has always been freedom, not support for companies. Put in another way: it is possible to get BSD code and close it, but that was never the purpose of BSD; as I said, BSD PREDATES all this. At most it can be seen as a side effect.

Originally Posted by brosis

GPL is both for production and for study.
BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.

If this is the case, I see no problem with these; for me BSD represents freedom, but I also acknowledge the importance of GNU/GPL in the history of FOSS. I also give them their deserved merits.

Originally Posted by brosis

If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.

You are free to think like that. Now, I see a simple, short license like BSD/MIT represent my ideals of freedom more than GPL, which is a license so complex that you can't think about doing something with them without the help of a lawyer. Something like this:

"The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called ‘copycenter’, which is ‘take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want.’"
—Kirk McKusick, BSDCon 1999

Originally Posted by brosis

Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.

I do not lie about freedom for stating what it means TO ME; you lie about it by stating what IT SHOULD MEAN TO EVERYBODY. I do not troll GPL; as said above, I give them their deserved credit.
I don't depend on "GPL people" so I would give a fuck if they give a fuck.

Originally Posted by brosis

No.
GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.

I think it is possible to have a free Unix even without GPL, although I must admit that the license has been a great strenght behind Linux' success. My point was that, while BSD was motivated by academy, by research, GNU/GPL on the other hand had more "emotional" motivations as a response for proprietary companies. This, I believe, invalids the claims that BSD supports closed-source companies.

Originally Posted by brosis

Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility

Well, I would say to this that I prefer a license that lets me decide WHAT is freedom (you could GPL the BSD) instead of a license that FORCES a definition of it (GPL is GPL now and forever). You can decide what freedom means to you, but trying to force everybody to think like this is, to me, something stupid.

Originally Posted by brosis

Yes, BSD motivation was "do anything about our code what you want".
Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.

For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed
source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.

Perhaps the reaction to GPL3 can be seen extreme, but, have you really gone through that license? I give you again the case of Linus Torvalds: http://www.informationweek.com/softw...pocr/229215444
So, do you think that you, FSF, GNU, GPL or Richard Stallman really have the last word in this? You should stop thinking of yourselves as owners of the truth.

Originally Posted by brosis

There is no such thing as "definition of freedom", there is freedom and there is anarchy. Freedom means "no slavery". Anarchy means allow everything.

I don't understand this statement; your are indeed defining freedom.
I think the term 'freedom' is one of the most controversial used throughout history, and neither of us are in the position to say what it is and what it isn't. The most we can do is say what represents closer our ideal of freedom

Originally Posted by brosis

Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.

But remember that a null pointer is actually a pointer to address 0x0; it is fundamentally invariable from any other pointer.

Originally Posted by brosis

Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.

You are already assuming a definition for freedom I do not agree with, hence I do not agree with your conclusions. (what if anarchy is the only true freedom?).

Originally Posted by brosis

My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.

I prefer the simpleness of BSD for freedom; I do not, however, discard doing closed-source or GPL stuff.

Also, notice that not everyone agrees with Stallman and the GNU/GPL project; it is not a BSD-exclusive thing. For example, look at the way Linus Torvalds thinks: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Torvalds is very critic with this whole issue: he likes GPL2, but does not agree with FSF, Stallman, GNU/GPL in all they say.